Jump to content

Blazin' Blaine Gabbert signs with the Titans


SteelKing728

Recommended Posts

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/titans-agree-to-terms-with-qb-gabbert-lineman-su-a-filo-032718

Blazin' Blaine looks to replace Matt Cassel as the top backup in Tennessee.

Gabbert has had a long career mostly as a journeyman, but honestly hasn't been that bad. I wonder if he'd be a  decent starter if he were drafted in a better situation..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/titans-agree-to-terms-with-qb-gabbert-lineman-su-a-filo-032718

Blazin' Blaine looks to replace Matt Cassel as the top backup in Tennessee.

Gabbert has had a long career mostly as a journeyman, but honestly hasn't been that bad. I wonder if he'd be a  decent starter if he were drafted in a better situation..?

You can definitely get worse backups.   I don’t know if he ever gets a real shot at starting now with this year’s draft class adding 5 Rd1 picks and 3-4 day 2 guys.   They will get priority (even knowing several will bust out you know they will get priority for 2+ seasons if not more).  So going to TEN makes a lot of sense.  Team on the rise that wants to have continuity and a new staff he can latch on with.

The thing I like with this is if TEN needs him they don’t have to change the O significantly with a mobile backup.   It’s why I’m not a fan of CAR past backup Anderson for Cam and now HOU’s choice of Weeden for Watson’s backup.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SteelKing728 said:

Gabbert has had a long career mostly as a journeyman, but honestly hasn't been that bad. I wonder if he'd be a  decent starter if he were drafted in a better situation..?

 

Short answer:  No.

 

Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Broncofan said:

The thing I like with this is if TEN needs him they don’t have to change the O significantly with a mobile backup.   It’s why I’m not a fan of CAR past backup Anderson for Cam and now HOU’s choice of Weeden for Watson’s backup.  

I don't know about that. Some teams have had good success when switching from a mobile QB to a stationary guy in the past. When Schaub replaced Mike Vick, he looked good. When Foles replaced Vick, he looked good. When Cousins replaced Griffin, he looked good. I don't know if it's just because opponents spent so much time focusing on the mobility of the QB, that the pocket guy comes in and surprises them, or if it's just because these pocket passers are just better at running what is essentially a dumbed down offense (which is often what mobile QBs end up running). So I don't know if it's automatic that a mobile QB should be backed up by another similar athlete. That athlete is necessarily not as good as the guy he's backing up. If he was, he'd probably be starting elsewhere. Being similar but worse doesn't necessarily help your team win. Being worse but different might. I don't know. Just thinking out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rudyZ said:

I don't know about that. Some teams have had good success when switching from a mobile QB to a stationary guy in the past. When Schaub replaced Mike Vick, he looked good. When Foles replaced Vick, he looked good. When Cousins replaced Griffin, he looked good. I don't know if it's just because opponents spent so much time focusing on the mobility of the QB, that the pocket guy comes in and surprises them, or if it's just because these pocket passers are just better at running what is essentially a dumbed down offense (which is often what mobile QBs end up running). So I don't know if it's automatic that a mobile QB should be backed up by another similar athlete. That athlete is necessarily not as good as the guy he's backing up. If he was, he'd probably be starting elsewhere. Being similar but worse doesn't necessarily help your team win. Being worse but different might. I don't know. Just thinking out loud.

The simpler answer with those examples is that the starter at the time wasn’t that good.  Cousins over RG3.   Vick once he lost his athletic edge.    And in Vick’s case he was more of a freelancer.  Cam and Watson and Mariota’s O all use some read option elements and designed QB rollouts.

The examples cited show starters who were questionable on whether they were better than their replacements.   I don’t think there’s any doubt in TEN/HOU/CAR and unlike Vick there’s more QB-mobile designer plays with the RPO.     That’s something that doesn’t get set aside as much with a mobile backup.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

The simpler answer with those examples is that the starter at the time wasn’t that good.  Cousins over RG3.   Vick once he lost his athletic edge.    And in Vick’s case he was more of a freelancer.  Cam and Watson and Mariota’s O all use some read option elements and designed QB rollouts.

The examples cited show starters who were questionable on whether they were better than their replacements.   I don’t think there’s any doubt in TEN/HOU/CAR and unlike Vick there’s more QB-mobile designer plays with the RPO.     That’s something that doesn’t get set aside as much with a mobile backup.  

 

I was thinking of rookie Cousins replacing rookie Griffin, when Griffin was red hot, but fragile. Cousins came in, and they still ran read option concepts and rudimentary route trees, and Cousins played well within the limitations of that offense. When Foles replaced Vick, they were still running a lot of the same concepts, but since Chip ran a rather simple offense, it was easy for Foles to come in and perform quickly. I don't remember the Vick-Schaub era as much, or at all, really. My point is, if you're counting on your back-up to do the exact same things your starter did, then you're probably in big trouble. Your opponents are already prepared for a better version of what you're throwing at them. I'd rather throw something different at them, something they don't necessarily have years of tape on, that might be your better hope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, rudyZ said:

I was thinking of rookie Cousins replacing rookie Griffin, when Griffin was red hot, but fragile. Cousins came in, and they still ran read option concepts and rudimentary route trees, and Cousins played well within the limitations of that offense. When Foles replaced Vick, they were still running a lot of the same concepts, but since Chip ran a rather simple offense, it was easy for Foles to come in and perform quickly. I don't remember the Vick-Schaub era as much, or at all, really. My point is, if you're counting on your back-up to do the exact same things your starter did, then you're probably in big trouble. Your opponents are already prepared for a better version of what you're throwing at them. I'd rather throw something different at them, something they don't necessarily have years of tape on, that might be your better hope. 

It’s a very good point that in-game giving a different look can actually help an O when the starter goes down.   That’s entirely fair.  I was referring to a multiple game scenario.  

Once that game is done though a more limited playbook and backup isn’t a good thing though.  Teams with a week to prepare really eat that up.   We see it so often when a backup has to keep playing for weeks on end the warts come out.   It’s what makes what PHI did in the Conference Championship  / SB week so impressive.   Pederson reshaped that O to Foles strengths and away from his weaknesses. The OAK and NYG games in week 16-17 & the ATL playoff game show the problem with backups if you limit the playbook (keeping in mind week 17 was meaningless to everyone but Foles getting reps). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

It’s a very good point that in-game giving a different look can actually help an O when the starter goes down.   That’s entirely fair. 

Once that game is done though a more limited playbook and backup isn’t a good thing though.  Teams with a week to prepare really eat that up.   We see it so often when a backup has to keep playing for weeks on end the warts come out.   It’s what makes what PHI did in the Conference Championship  / SB week so impressive.   Pederson reshaped that O to Foles strengths and away from his weaknesses. The OAK and NYG games in week 16-17 & the ATL playoff game (keeping in mind week 17 was meaningless to everyone but Foles getting reps). 

I totally agree. Usually, when you are forced to play your back-up for an extended period, you're screwed. That truly makes Foles' work and, in my opinion, especially Doug Pederson's work all that more impressive. Foles rose to the challenge brilliantly. And week after week, Pederson came up with new wrinkles and new ways to use Foles and bring out the best out of him. It was a masterful coaching job, really. Ultimately, you want your back-up to be someone you believe in, to a certain extent. As a niner fan, I don't want Jimmy GQB to get hurt, but if he did, I have reasons to hope CJ BeatHard can possibly be good enough to win us a game (well, that hope is based on progression and him learning from Jimmy, at this point... but he gets points for being one of the toughest QB I've seen in years. and the hope is based on Kyle's playcalling too). 

But here we're talking about Blaine... as a niner fan, I don't know that he's the guy you can pin your hopes on. He's good enough to win games when he's at his best, but he's very inconsistent, and more often on the bad side than the good. He has had a few very good games with us his first year. But the more you see him, the less you want to see him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...